STEPHEN FAGUNDEZ.

In quinque posteriora præcepta Decalogi. Lugduni, 1640. (Ed. Coll. Sion.)

An useful doubt arises in the case of a son who transacts at a distance his father's business, or always remains with him in the house to sell the goods of his father who is a merchant, whether he may take secretly as much of his father's property in return for his labour and industry, as his father would have given to a hired servant for the same labour and occupation; and that, too, in addition to his father's expense in maintaining him? The reply must be made in the affirmative.-(Tom. II. Lib. vii. c. 3. n. 11.)

Servants are also bound to restore to their master whatever they have taken beyond their wages and proper food, provided that their masters have not compelled them to fulfil duties over and above those for which they agreed; for then they may take something more (provided it be just) for the duty and service which they are compelled to discharge beyond their agreement.(Ibid. c. 11. n. 4.)

FRANCIS AMICUS.

Cursus Theologici, Tomus V. Duaci, 1642. He who has stolen to a considerable amount, is not obliged under pain of mortal sin to restore the whole; but it is sufficient if he restore as much as will secure his neighbour from considerable loss: so that if the amount of the theft be one florin, the thief is not bound, under pain of mortal sin, to restore the whole florin, but it will be sufficient to restore four or five grotes, by which the material loss occasioned by the theft is removed.-(Disp. 38. Sect. 4. n. 47.)

STEPHEN BAUNY.

Somme des Péchés qui se commettent en tous Etats. Rouen, 1653.

Qu. 10. - Whether from many small thefts can result which would be a mortal sin? For instance, a penny has been taken from one or more persons at different times; it is asked whether these trifling and inconsiderable sums, taken together, constitute a sin which is mortal? and under what circumstances?

The common opinion is, that the last act of theft, which is necessary to complete the sum which constitutes the mortal sin, may deprive a man of the friendship of God, and that therefore

it must be ranked among the number of mortal sins. Thus reason Salas, Filliucius, &c. ... Yet with their permission I will venture to say, that the last theft, which is supposed to be as inconsiderable as those which have preceded it, is only venial... For the action takes its nature from the object, and the theft from the injury which is committed, &c. Emmanuel Sa, at the word Furtum (n. 8), reasoning upon this ground, says, that it is very probable that he who per vices pauca alicui est furatus, cùm ad notabilem quantitatem pervenerit, is not obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to restore any thing... And these trifling thefts, committed on different days and at different opportunities, against one man or against many, however great may be the amount which has been stolen, will never become mortal sins. (Des Larcins, c. 10.)

THOMAS TAMBURIN.

Explicatio Decalogi. Lugduni, 1659. (Lugduni, 1665. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

That a number of small thefts may constitute a mortal sin, it is necessary that they should be committed continuously, and that they should not be separated by any considerable intervals of time... If four years elapse between the commission of one theft and another, it is accounted by Rebel to be a considerable interval... one

year by Sanchez... six months by some, and fifteen days by others.--(Lib. viii. Tr. 2. c. 3. § 1. n. 3.)

Compensation of Servants.

Qu. 4.--May servants requite themselves clandestinely, when their masters deny them a just remuneration?

Ans.-They certainly may if they refuse them. equitable recompense, but only on the conditions described (at § 1.)-(Ibid. de compensat. occult. c. 5. § 5. n. 1.)

BUSEMBAUM & LACROIX.

Theologia Moralis, nunc pluribus partibus aucta à R. P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu. Coloniæ, 1757. (Coloniæ Agrippinæ, 1733. Ed. Mus. Brit.)

He does not steal who takes in just compensation, if he cannot obtain what is due to him by any other means. For instance, if a servant cannot otherwise obtain his lawful wages, or is unjustly compelled to serve for an unjust remuneration.-(Tom. II. Lib. iii. Pars I. Tr.5. c. 1. Dub. 1. n. 935. resol. III.)

If any one prudently presumes that his master would be perfectly satisfied, or knew that he would certainly give (the thing taken) if he were asked, he does not sin greatly in taking it.—(Ibid. c. 1. Quæst. 208. § 2. n. 946.)

An extremely poor man may steal what is neces

sary for the relief of his want... And what any one may steal for himself, he may also steal for another whose indigence is extreme. -(Ibid. Quæst. 211. § 2. n. 950.)

Lessius, Dicastille, and Tamburin add, that he who should prevent another from stealing what he thus required, might be killed by such a poor man; as the thief who steals or forcibly retains valuable, or at least necessary things, might be killed, according to what has been said before.(Ibid.)

SECT. XIV.

HOMICIDE.

HENRY HENRIQUEZ.

Summæ Theologia Moralis, Tomus I. Venetiis, 1600. (Ed. Coll. Sion.)

If an adulterer, even although he should be an ecclesiastic, reflecting upon the danger, has entered the house of an adulteress, and being attacked by her husband, kills his aggressor in the necessary defence of his life or limbs, he is not considered irregular.24

24 "Si adulter, etiam clericus, advertens periculum, intravit domum adulteræ, et invasus à marito illius, occidat invasorem pro necessaria vitæ aut membrorum defensione: non videtur irregularis."-Lib. xiv. de Irregularitate, c. 10. § 3.